Mr. Chairman:

Allow me to express our satisfaction to see you presiding over the sessions of this important committee once again. We all know and value your vast personal and diplomatic experience, as well as your tireless efforts to put an end to the remaining de-colonization problems. My government is sure that, under your balanced and active leadership, we will firmly advance towards achieving such noble goal.

Furthermore, I would like to underline strongly our warm recognition to the other members of the committee and the secretariat staff for their renewed efforts and invaluable dedication.

Mr. Chairman,

We see these summer deliberations of the special committee as different from the previous ones.

In effect, on the one hand we have a new administration at the United Nations: the new Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan to whom I extend my respects from the podium offered to me by this committee. On the other hand, there is a new government in the United Kingdom, with a clear majority in Parliament, with which we expect to continue the dialogue initiated with the previous government.

At the same time, a dialogue between the committee and the administrating powers has been restored, and new members have joined the Committee with the will to work within the best traditions of the United Nations. I extend my most respectful and cordial greetings to Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia and Saint Lucia.

We deem this news cannot be but auspicious.

I would also like to recognize and thank the presence of petitioners , Mr. Alejandro Betts, Mr. Juan Scott, Mrs. Sharon Halford and Mr. William Luxton. I have known all of them personally for years. With all of them I have discussed the problem under debate here and in spite of our differences of opinion, I have no doubt that we will achieve constructive results in the end.

Mr. Chairman,

The of the cold war, which brought about so many changes to international relations, did not alter the elements which during the 1960 and 1970s, at the apex of the de-colonization process, allowed to differentiate the Malvinas question from other colonial situations. In that sense, it is clear that:

On one hand, in cases of contested sovereignty, the territorial dispute should be resolved first and only at a later stage the applicability of the self-determination principle should be analyzed. In that respect, it is appropriate to quote as I did last year, Dr. Rosalyn Higgins, a prestigious British jurist and a member of the international court of justice. From her recent book "Problems and Process, International Law and How to Use It": (I quote): "Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right of self-determination."

On the other hand, territorial integrity, as expressed in paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV), is the limit of the right to self-determination. And that limit does not have as its only purpose to prevent future disruptions of the territorial integrity of emerging states but also to protect pre-existing territorial claims. This interpretation is reaffirmed by resolution 2353 (XXII) of the General Assembly, which in the last paragraph of its preamble states that "any colonial situation that partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and specifically with paragraph 6 of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV)".

The restitution of Hong Kong on July 1 of this year nd of Macao in 1999 to the Popular Republic of China, is the most recent evidence of the unchangeable validity of the territorial integrity principle. Furthermore, this reveals that administrative powers, under certain circumstances, are able to change their opinion through dialogue and negotiation.

Finally, the General Assembly pronouncements reflect and confirm the adoption of a case-by-case approach, as well as the recognition of special situations deserving a differential treatment, such as Malvinas.

Mr. Chairman,

Regarding the Malvinas question, Resolution 2065 (XX) adopted by a large majority and, --it should be noted, without the negative vote of the United Kingdom-- clearly establishes that there is a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Likewise, Resolution 3160 (XXVII) points out that in order to solve a colonial situation, the sovereignty dispute should be settled first the United Kingdom did not vote against this Resolution either. This mandate has recently been subscribed by the Seminar organized by this Committee last May in Antigua and Barbuda. Its report recommends that the committee should continue to encourage the resumption of negotiations between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom.

The Committee is well aware of the historic and legal grounds of Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Malvinas Islands. Several countries, groups and regional and international organizations have pronounced in favor of our claim.

In this respect, I deem it necessary to analyze the Parties behavior through legally relevant facts. In this context, the conduct adopted by the Parties i.e. protest or acquiescence constitute an important guidance. Allow me to recall them briefly:

After declaring its independence in 1816, as a consequence of the applicability of the principle of state succession, the new independent State, Argentina, continued in the possession of the totality of the territories which at the time were part of the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate including the Malvinas Islands. On November 9, 1820, Colonel David Jewitt, aboard the National Frigate "Heroina," took possession of the Island at Puerto Soledad in the presence of several citizens of the United States and British subjects.

In 1825, by signing a treaty of friendship, trade and navigation, the United Kingdom recognized Argentina's independence and made no reservations of sovereignty with regard to the Malvinas Islands.

From then on and until 1833, the Argentine Republic exercised concrete and public acts of effective occupation of the territory.

In opposition to the British acquiescence to the exercise of sovereignty during over more than five decades, first by Spain and then by the Argentine Republic as her legitimate heir, allow me to recall Argentine policy after January 3, 1833:

Argentina protested at once: on January 16, 1833, Dr. Mazza, Minister of Foreign Affairs, requested explanations to the British Charge d'Affaires in Buenos Aires. The protest was reiterated also in Buenos Aires on January 22, 1833. On June 17, of the same year, the Argentine Representative to Great Britain presented a formal protest to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston. Since then and until today, the Argentine Government vindicated its just rights at both bilateral and multilateral levels preventing in this way any hypothetical British invocation of the principle of acquisition by prescription which anyhow, could not have any effects following an illegal act of force.

Mr. Chairman,

Contrary to the situation of other non-self-governing territories and taking into account the peculiarities of the case, the Malvinas question has to be settled through negotiations between the Republic of Argentina and the United Kingdom, in accordance with pronouncements reiterated by the United Nations (Resolution 2065 (XX) and others). To proceed otherwise, on top of rewarding an act of usurpation, would cause the territorial disruption of the Argentine Republic.

The principle of self determination is applicable to peoples under colonial domination. In the Malvinas Islands case, the colonized population cannot be distinguished from the colonizer, since the former are the descendants of the settlers established there by the occupying power, which after the illegal seizure of the territory in 1833, forcibly expelled the preexisting Argentine population which has since been impeded to freely settle in the territory or purchase land in it. In that sense, allow me to recall, because it is eloquent and has been stated in this committee's proceedings, the case of an islander who was banned from visiting the Islands with an Argentine passport.

Mr. Chairman,

Contrary to the situation of other non-self-governing territories administered by the United Kingdom, since 1983 the United Kingdom has granted the Islandsī population full British citizenship with the right to settle in the United Kingdom. That should not come as a surprise since, unlike other British colonies, the Malvinas Islands are inhabited by people of British descent. To grant a right to self-determination would mean to accept that a group of 2,000 British subjects can be the arbiter of a territorial controversy of which their country is a party.

In that sense, in 1985 the General Assembly categorically rejected two British proposals of amendments that would have introduced the principle of self-determination. In doing so, it settled the good doctrine, and that cannot be reopened.

Mr. Chairman,

In view of the growing cooperation between Argentina and the United Kingdom in the economic, social and cultural fields, it is frankly surprising that two friendly nations are not seating to talk about solving their differences. The British Council for Cultural Relations has significantly increased its activities in my country; British business people are among the major investors in Argentine economy; our diplomats coordinate their positions actively in multilateral fora; both peoples and governments share the same transcendental values in the defense of freedom, democracy, peace and human rights. Such positive rapport reveals a climate of great trust.

How is it possible, then, that in the middle of so many shared coincidences and projects there is no space for a dialogue, to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands? How is it possible that in the post-cold war world which has seen former rivals at the negotiating table, two friends cannot frankly discuss their viewpoints on all aspects of a dispute without prejudging about its final outcome?

Positions are distant, but to negotiate does not mean that the Parties will achieve the most and everything they seek. It does mean to have the courage of facing difficulties and explore for imaginative alternatives leading to the settlement of their differences.

I am convinced that in the same way both countries have continued to make progress in existing cooperation schemes in matters of conservation of fishing resources, of the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons and environmental protection in the South Atlantic, we will be able to find solutions if we resume the dialogue on the sovereignty dispute.

Undoubtedly, developments in the areas of conservation and management of natural resources in the South Atlantic would be strengthened if direct links were re-established between the Islands and the continent. We sincerely believe it is the right time to do so for the benefit and development of men and women of the South Atlantic. As evidenced in the cases of oil and fisheries, the Argentine Republic has the best and broadest disposition to search for formulas of understanding that may lead to re-establish communications which proved to be fruitful in the past.

Mr. Chairman,

Respect for the lifestyle of islanders and the recovery of the Islands exclusively by peaceful means are guaranteed by Argentina's constitution. Argentina has always offered to respect the islanders lifestyle. Today, before this honorable committee, we solemnly reiterate that commitment.

Mr. Chairman,

On these relevant issues of the question, and as a sign of respect for the islanders, allow me to express myself in their language:

Notwithstanding that the controversy is between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom, we are conscious that the British parliament will not disregard the views of the islanders. In this connection, I want to express that we also care about them and we are committed to their well-being.

The conservation of natural resources in the South Atlantic, that so well has provided to the economic and social development of the population of the islands, is an interest shared by all of us.

We rejoice on the improvements achieved and we shall continue to take under consideration the fulfillment of a balanced and progressive economic interrelationship.

Concerning fisheries, while we were having promising conversations on future understandings, we were faced with decisions taken in violation of the Antarctic Treaty system rules which excluded Argentina from areas of the sea were its fishing vessels had always been active. We regret that this state of affairs superseded the dialogue and unable further evolution.

On hydrocarbons, we foresee interesting developments leaning to the coordinated exploration and exploitation of off-shore resources in the benefit of both the Islands and the continent.

On communications, Argentina has unilaterally supported the different schemes that provided the islands with links with the neighboring countries in the South Atlantic. I am proud that we have taken such attitude, rather than the opposite.

Unfortunately, this open and cooperative disposition has been received with demonstrations of discrimination and prejudice. So far, contacts with the Islands are denied.

There are very few cases in the whole world --hardly more than six-- where lack of communication to such a degree could be found, being this case one of the worst.

We are fully aware of the existing differences but we find it hard to believe that dialogue is not possible. We are convinced that through good will and respect for each others heritage and culture we will be able to understand our respective positions: at a first stage we should be ready to agree to disagree.

Less than fifteen years after World War II --when more than fifty million people were killed-- the relationship between the European countries were totally normalized, and the argument that this was possible due to the absence of territorial claims, is irrelevant. We do have a territorial claim, but we have committed ourselves through our Constitution to recover the islands exclusively by peaceful means. This introduces a significant difference.

Time has come for promoting dialogue and understanding . Contacts with the Islands should be encouraged, everybody will benefit from that. Let us try.

Mr. Chairman,

There should be no doubt that Argentina will continue all required efforts to resume negotiations about the main issue in this dispute.

We trust the new British administration will perceive the benefits from a dialogue creating bridges and making our positions come closer, leaving behind rigid formulas which have led us nowhere. Today a new opportunity opens up so that two friends sit at a table with imagination, flexibility, mutual trust and good faith with the purpose of solving a colonial anachronism.

Mr. Chairman,

The Malvinas Islands question, which has been under United Nations consideration for over 30 years, lies deep in the hearts of Argentines. We trust that the considerations made here justify the broad support of the Honorable Committee to the draft resolution presented by Chile and cosponsored by Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Papua New Guinea, urging to the dialogue and to a peaceful settlement of the sovereignty dispute.

Finally, I would like to express once more to the co-sponsors: Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Papua New Guinea and Venezuela our deepest and warmest gratitude for promoting with so much generosity and enthusiasm this initiative, which will undoubtedly contribute to solve this question. To our brothers of Mercosur, represented by Paraguay, who, like last year, accompany us during this debate, also goes our most sincere gratitude.

Thank you very much.